Rog’s Blog: Dodgy Decisions #10

Decision 18-2a/13 states:

Ball Lifted Without Authority and Cleaned

Q. A player’s ball comes to rest on the apron of a green. Mistakenly believing that the ball is on the green, the player marks, lifts and cleans it. The player incurs a penalty stroke under Rule 18-2a for lifting the ball without authority under the Rules. Does the player incur an additional penalty stroke under Rule 21 for cleaning the ball?

A. No. Rule 21 states that a ball may be cleaned when lifted except when it has been lifted in accordance with Rule 5-3, 12-2 or 22.

This Decision is questionable for two reasons: its astonishing logic and its inconsistency with other Rules.

First, to argue that an action is approved because it complies with a deficient Rule is truly amazing. Rule 21 does indeed describe only three (3) exceptions to the general principle that a ball may be cleaned when lifted but fails completely to address the situation where a ball may be ‘illegally or inappropriately’ lifted in other circumstances.  The solution is not to persist with the fantasy that it is reasonable for a player to lift a ball contrary to the Rules, proceed to remove adhering mud from it, replace it and escape sanction, other than for the act of lifting, just because Rule 21 is silent.

Second, Decision 20-1/0.7 states, in part:

Lifting Ball to Determine Application of Rule

Q. May a player lift his ball to determine whether he is entitled to relief under a Rule (e.g. to determine whether his ball is in a hole made by a burrowing animal or is embedded)?

A. In equity (Rule 1-4), if a player has reason to believe he is entitled to relief from a condition, the player may lift his ball, without penalty, provided he announces his intention in advance to his opponent in match play or his marker or fellow-competitor in stroke play, marks the position of the ball before lifting it, does not clean the ball and gives his opponent or fellow competitor an opportunity to observe the lifting.

.

.

.

If the ball does not lie in a position from which the player is entitled to relief, or if the player is entitled to relief but decides not to take it, the ball must be replaced, and the opponent, marker or fellow-competitor must be given the opportunity to observe the replacement. If a player who is required to replace the ball fails to do so before making a stroke, he incurs a penalty of loss of hole in match play or two strokes in stroke play under Rule 20-3a, but there is no additional penalty for failure to comply with the procedure for lifting or under Rule 20-1 or 21.

If the player lifts a ball without having reason to believe that it lies in a position from which he is entitled to relief without penalty or if the ball does not lie in a position which entitles the player to relief and the player fails to comply with this procedure, he incurs a penalty of one stroke but there is no additional penalty under Rule 20-1 or 21.

While it is not to say that they are unreasonable, or that there is not precedent contained within Rule 5-3 and 12-2, there is, of course, no specific provision within the Rules to support the procedural requirements mandated in this Decision. But The Castle must be able to create conditions in cases of equity – except where these conditions contravene a Rule or create inconsistency!

Let us assume that a player believing that her ball is embedded in a closely mown area. She lifts the ball in accordance with the above procedure but in the process cleans the ball. The player determines that the ball is not, in fact, embedded replaces it and proceeds to play.

We see in Decision 18-2a/13 confirmation that Rule 21 permits the cleaning of any lifted ball except when lifted under Rule 5-3, 12-2 or 22.  Yet Decision 20-1/0.7 specifies that there are other circumstances in which the ball may not be cleaned.

So how can there be different provisions for a ball ‘illegally’ lifted (where the ball is incorrectly believed to be on the green) and one ‘inappropriately’ lifted (where the ball is, for instance, incorrectly believed to be embedded)?

It is clear that this whole area is confused (and confusing) and that there are decisions which are dodgy as a consequence.

 

The simple answer to this problem is to modify Rule 21 to read:

A ball on the putting green may be cleaned when lifted under Rule 16-1b. Elsewhere, a ball may be cleaned when lifted, except when such action is prohibited by another Rule or the ball has been lifted contrary to a Rule.

Rules 5-3, 12-2 and 22 already state that the ball may not be cleaned under application of each of these Rules and it is, therefore, not necessary to limit the application of Rule 21 by restating the provisions of these Rules. Attempting to create exhaustive lists of exceptions is always fraught with danger.